I feel that if there is someone who really needs help, there are ways to help, o ther than just

handing them money or enabling them to continue in the state they 're in.

I think it would be nice if the richer found a way to help out the poor a bit mo re. It doesnt have to be in a certain way, as in give them money. But there are many forms. Could buy them a months worth of groceries, Donate clothes, buy the simple things they may not have, take a homeless person for a shower and a dinne r. Etc Some of the famous people for example have SOOOO much money they dont know what to do with it. Spend millions on homes, designer stuff, partying etc. Yes they h ave earnt their money and can spend it however they please. But if for example a ll the famous and rich people with mass incomes, donated even Ten thousand each, which would be nothing out of their pockets. Added up, it could build a new hom eless shelter, send food to the poor, buy heaps of clothes, send a few more kids to school etc. If there was a better way to share around and help out the poor especially if yo u are very able to, yes i think they should not that again.. they have to. Alot do, but also alot dont.

Should the rich help the poor? This is most certainly a philosophical question t hat could be argued many ways. The rich would defend their wealth saying they worked hard for it and deserve it . They will even make excuses for the poor saying that if the poor had worked ha rder they too could be rich -but this really is not true since there is not unli mited wealth. As well not all rich people got their wealth through hard work -so me got lucky, others were born into it. Some rich who were born poor still remember what it was like and some do try to help the poor, but I have not really seen any wealthy individual lower their own standard of living so that others may even come close. You suggest a poor man can ruin a rich man's life? I ask HOW? How can one person with nothing "RUIN" the life of a person with so much? I suggest instead that t he rich man has ruined the lives of many people by taking more than their share of the pie and forcing others into poverty. We have people who are billionaires. Some have more money than there are people on earth. This disgusts me. A parent is watching their child die because they do not have a dollar for food or medicine and some greedy bastard sits with billio ns of dollars in their off shore bank account. The rich "should" in theory help the poor - but only because it is the right thi ng to do on a humanitarian level. However most are too greedy clinging to their money like it is life itself. By the way, in reference to wealth, when compared to many parts of the world - W E are the 1% with all the money, even those of us who live below the poverty lin e in our developed nations are more wealthy than the richest in some of those ot her countries. Will we help the poor?

Long answer: Like many other animals, humans exist within social systems that po

ssess varying degrees of balance and hierarchy. History demonstrates trends movi ng toward and away from exploitation and conflict versus cooperation and sharing , where material and spiritual rewards are distributed more evenly or hoarded. A t any given time in history, some percentage of people will be earnestly gaming the system for personal advantage (from anywhere along the top-to-bottom socioec onomic spectrum) while others work diligently to build and maintain community. F or a social system to function at all, meaning that things don't break down into anarchy, stability and trust must be present at a fundamental level. When those two things erode badly enough, rebellions and revolutions occur. We all rely upon each other for many things in a complex society, including no s mall amount of forbearance of our differences. More importantly, our current mat erials and supply paradigm runs fairly narrow margins, meaning that basic needs such as tap water, stocked grocery shelves, gasoline, heating oil, and electrici ty could disappear rather quickly if some piece of the puzzle failed. That puzzl e piece could be shipping oil through the Strait of Hormuz or human labor in fie lds harvesting food. If people refuse to show up, no amount of pixelated wealth in someone's investment account will feed them. Should we help each other to participate meaningfully in social and economic lif e? Well, yes, of course. What's the alternative? Abandoning each other to our in dividual fates in a dog-eat-dog competition for survival? Many people believe th at second version, but it's a fallacy, since the whole of society is based on th e same mutuality one observes in a bee hive. When things do break down, lots of people die. Those struggling close to the poverty and subsistence line are not in a position to offer much aid to others, since their entire focus lies in providing from th emselves and their affiliations, mostly but not only family. If they are ground underfoot by possessors of power, the best option remaining is typically crime, which is ultimately counterproductive to those same possessors of power who must then deal with needs that could and should have been addressed other ways. Those possessing power -- and make no mistake, wealth is power -- may not owe an ything to anyone else, but that's a narrow and miserly view of social participat ion and its obligations. The wealthy can certainly retreat to gated communities and fortify themselves against the rabble, but then they're besieged, which is f rankly no way to live. They also commit moral abdication in such behaviors, whic h is no big deal I suppose if one has no conscience but a very big deal if one d oes have a conscience.

I think that if a rich man doesn't invest into things that benefits humanity in the long run, things like science, he is utterly corrupted.